Just what is the best operating system?
 

Out of all the operating systems built, everyone has what they think (and, amazingly, are even willing to fight for!) are the best operating systems or system in existence.

Only the top operating systems will be included. Even though an operating system you know of you think should be in this list, it's not going to be included because it does not have enough market share--these are recognized globally, and I'll try to stick to facts, rather than opinion. Mobile operating systems are in italics. This is simply a post for everyone (in all kindness) to state which system is their favorite:

- OS X (really, Darwin OS) is based on FreeBSD, but it's not BSD... instead, we find OS X to be semi-proprietary with some OSS in it. It is used mainly for high-performance applications for audio, video, and photography, as well as in some school environments. Those who use it claim it is incredibly easy, works, and is THE best OS. It is claimed to be powerful and solid due to the Unix core, as well as having Unix available--but this isn't such an advantage anymore (see Windows). The "classic" Mac OS is still in use by hobbyists, and there are still some who claim (up until the release of 10.5) that OS 9 was the better Mac OS in terms of stability and speed. With the modern Mac OS X 10.6 and upcoming 10.7, this is quickly to change.

Spawning off OS X is the iOS, which is the top in inventive features, including the ability to run apps in simplicity, revolutionary touch capability which still today is not as original as the first.

And, let's not forget the iPodOS, based on Pixo, which made the click-wheel generations of the iPod, made the iPods sell at an expotential rate (which, though iPods changed to iOS, that trend continues to this day.)

- Windows, claiming a chunk of market share, is touted to be what everyone uses, is familiar with, and also is called "innovative" with Media Center, application intregration, and other characteristics of it's own. On the technical side, being extensible, and having support for the Unix subsystem natively (requires installation from Programs and Features and a separate Unix subsystem package download) in Windows Server 2008, Vista, and Windows 7, Windows has finally appealed to the developer audience as well.

While Vista and 7 are the next generation of Windows, being totally redesigned with new APIs, a new UI, and other improvements, XP is still primarily used by many users and organizations, as it is compatible with most software today.

Mobile and Phone spawn off of Windows, but arguably the desktop/notebook market is what is holding the strongest. Windows Phone 7 still has ground to make, though it, like iOS, has multi-touch capability.

- Linux, the third best known OS, is configurable, arguably the most powerful and underrated in the OS ring, and is purely open-source software from top to bottom. And what's not supported is either coded into working or can be made to alternatively function. Linux can run on any computer architecture, including ARM, Intel (x86 and ia64), AMD64, powerpc, and MIPS, making it highly portable. It is also highly extensible, ranging from 10 MB to 4.7 GB with distributions. But it is also criticized for too many ideas in window management, too many forks in applications, and also for not supporting all hardware as well.

Linux, however, differs from these first two in that it tries to ensure the CLI lives on. Because Linux is the kernel, and the distributions that are built around it are called "Linux", it can be modified in any way the user wants. Therefore, anyone surfing the Web can freely grab a CLI "distro" reminiscient of the Unix terminal, or download a GUI version, such as Linux Mint, comparable to Windows, OS X, and others.

Google Android and what is now HP WebOS are based on Linux. These are active ways that a more commercial front is being applied to the open, free operating system. Android is also a multi-touch competitor, and runs on several phones on the market today. Palm, though short-lived with the webOS, was bought up, but hopefully webOS will continue on.

- Solaris, still in active use today, has many of the advantages of Linux, especially with openSolaris (which has now spun into several forks). It also has several features, such as ZFS and a self-repairing file system, disk slices, and Unix support as well. Solaris, however, does not support as much software as the big three do, but is still the fourth OS today.

- BSD, the second open-source community, which OS X (really Darwin OS) is based on top of, is very like Linux in that it is completely open source, can support any hardware or architecture it is slapped on, and is also extensible as well. Unlike Linux, which is a kernel, however, BSD is not. Instead, it is an active software distribution, which actively (like OS X) works with the Mach kernel, and BSD comes in several different flavors.

- FreeDOS, a continuation of the traditional DOS (though MS-DOS could be put into this category) is now seen by the general user community as being too complex, time-consuming, and an archaic thing to play games on. While there are coders today who still use it, the GUI has not helped this situation. However, while forgotten, DOS is still a powerful and versatile platform, though it's method of interaction is for the more technically inclined.

- Haiku (the successor to the now-gone BeOS) sports ease of use, some Unix compatibility in the background, uses it's own kernel and bootloader, and has full backward compatibility. The main problem with Haiku, however, is a lack of hardware support, and multiple architectures, though it does have great backward compatibility with BeOS applications.

- ReactOS (included for it's recognition in the OSS community) is an operating system which tries to work on compatibility with Windows completely. It tries to do this by allowing itself to work on the Wine layer, without being Linux, but having it's own driver stack, bootloader, installer, and kernel.

- Lastly, but not least, Symbian is the last mobile OS, which according to the latest, sounds like it may not be here much longer, even if it continues to be developed. Masked underneath the proprietary Nokia OS, Symbian is an open source operating system which powers mobile phones. It works with both touch and clamshell-style phones, and supports both J2ME (mostly on entry-level) and Symbian signed applications. Symbian allows editing of documents, included it's own browser and apps, and was a viable alternative to Windows Mobile and PalmOS in it's time. While now it is not going to be on the spotlight anymore, it continues to be a great operating system.

I've experimented with using and programmed on these (with the exception of BSD, iOS, Phone, and Android), and I don't really see what makes one OS better. All have their ups and their downs.

So... what do *you* think? What's your favorite operating system and... why? :)

Bone picking:

"native support" implies straight out of the box. If it requires installation it's only "native support" in the marketing department.

My favorite OS is the brain. There is nothing like it in instructions per seconds 0.1 quadrillion instructions per second. It weighs roughly 3 pounds. It's capable of communicating on multiple languages. The brain is mobile and doesn't lose power while on the go. Most of all, it's self aware and highly innovative. All the OS'es are complementary to my favorite OS.

Top that with any of the other OS'es! Probably not the opinion you're looking for but that's what you get with the greatest OS in the world.:)

Well...I was going to tout the operating system that I first learned about computers on.
http://www.1000bit.it/bootscr/vic20screen.gif

...but I guess it no longer has adequate market share. Now, back in 1982, it was the biggest selling computer of all. [slinks off]

My favorite was and still is FreeBSD. And at the risk of starting a religious war BSD is not like Linux, it's actually the other way around. Also none of the BSDs use the Mach kernel. The Mach kernel is a microkernel and all the BSDs use a monolithic kernel. The OS-X kernel is actually a hybrid, it uses the Mach microkernel as it's base but there are bits and pieces of the monolithic FreeBSD kernel attached to it.

As for Solaris (which I use extensively at work), it doesn't have Unix support, it is a Unix (Single UNIX specification certified). More specifically it's a System V Release 4 implementation.

Agree with that. :)

I'll third that. :)

For computers back in the old days I liked VMS. Now Mac OS X + virtualization means I can have them all.

BSD, OS X, Linux, Solaris can all be lumped under "Unix", really.

So really, there's "Unix"; and "Windows".

The OS that I have the most respect for, in terms of "Whoah, that's clever. They really thought this through." is the BBC Micro OS 1.2 by Acorn.
16K of utter genius, and every byte counts.

I used VMS on the VAX mainframe at university. The big grey wall of manuals was a great place to learn -- from the others consulting it, as much as the volumes themselves.

Not according to the Open Group ;)

Windows 7
 

Unlike its predecessor, Windows Vista, which introduced a large number of new features, Windows 7 was intended to be a more focused, incremental upgrade to the Windows line, with the goal of being compatible with applications and hardware with which Windows Vista was not at the time

I'll state up front, Symbian, imho, outside of the now-gone PalmOS, is my favorite mobile operating system. :) Too bad one company, at least, is no longer going to give it a chance...

@trevor: I noticed CBM. Were you meaning the great C/PM? :)

In the desktop arena, I don't know... OS X is pretty innovative, and Haiku follows some of the same concepts, but Linux is an open source and relatively stable operating system. And yes, Solaris is a Unix system--sorry I didn't include that--I'm well aware of it; just didn't want to take up to too much room there. :) Odd... I'm not sure what OS is my favorite--I do like Unix-like systems over Windows, though.

And, BSD *can* use the Mach kernel, but yes... BSD has it's own implementations as well. Thought the part about the brain was hilarious--and I sorta agree on that. :D

Are you sure about the title of the thread? Supposing the question were "what is the best color?", I think we'd be puzzled and ask "best for what?". Maybe a better title is "What is your favorite operating system and why?" and that still doesn't give us the context of the task at hand.

I use Mac, Windows and Linux every day and like them all. I use them for my open source activities. They are all "best" in their own way.

MacOS-X and open source are reluctant bed-fellows. I experience frequent conflicts between architectures of dependent libraries.

Windows 7 provides a very nice desktop. The task bar and Window animation is very pleasant. Building open source with DevStudio or MinGW or Cygwin is usually painful. In compensation, many project provide binary installers which make installation (and removal) effortless.

Ubuntu 10.10 has an amazing desktop (3-d cube and wobbly windows). The system is really good for building open source with little pain.

I do however believe that if I could only have one, it would be MacOS-X on my 24" iMac. The reason to like it best is because it provides a rock-solid 64 bit UNIX sub-system with nice eye-candy above. I use VMware Fusion to host virtual machines which run Ubuntu and Windows.

Wait a second, OS X Client now supports virtualization?? Whaaaaat?:eek:

No (although oddly enough my first exposure to CP/M was on a somewhat later CBM computer).

CBM is Commodore Business Machines. The screen I showed was exactly as it looked on my first computer, a Vic-20, when you turned it on. "Booting" took about a second. 3583 bytes free!

The Vic-20 was succeeded by the Commodore 64, then the Commodore 128 (which is where I played with CP/M). I have incredibly fond memories of all of those machines.

Trevor

Commodore 64 was my first computer and it was great, big and bulky. I recall writing a program where someone floated away on a balloon.

As robinwmills said, the question lies not really with "best" but "favourite" - unless there's a task involved.

My conclusion is no operating system is the "best"... I was just curious what would be the best operating system, if there were a general opinion. Maybe I should have posted a poll. :D

Anyway--every OS has it's great points and areas where it needs improvement. I guess after coding on, and also using all these OSes a while, anyone who's used computers long enough realizes there either needs to be something better or that operating systems are relatively, when you think of it, just operating systems.

See how smart the best OS in the world thinks about a solution? Your OS couldn't do that!:D

Best for what? Crunching numbers, or newbies, or what? That's the context of "best".

Renaultsoft:

I think Ron is saying "your brain can think about the merits of different things", the OS cannot! (Ron, please speak up if I'm mis-representing you).

There's been a lot of talk recently about Artificial Intelligence. Time magazine gave it a cover story last month. And we saw "Watson" win on Jeopardy.

While Watson's achievement is impressive and all the computer OSs continue to improve, I wonder about the comparison between human brain/thinking and the digital computer/processing. Professor John Searle advanced the conundrum of the Chinese Room about 30 years ago and effectively killed the concept of a "thinking digital computer". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Se...l_intelligence

Q: Can machines think? A: Yes, human biological machines do it all the time.

Q: Can a digital computer think? A: I don't believe it is thinking. Watson can't even hear. Ingenious? Yes. Intelligent? You decide, or should be ask Watson?

Not an answer to the OP, but my most hated was Windows NT4, Service Pack 6!

Maybe I should reconsider that, actually, because the POS that NT 4 SP6 was, is what made me go out and get my first Mac. Occasional glitches, mostly my own fault/ignorance, but I have thoroughly enjoyed my nearly 8 years with Macs. My Macs do everything I ask of them and rarely let me down. There is definitely something to be said for an OS that is tailor-made to the physical machine it has to run on.

All the NT family of operating systems are infinitely better that any DOS. I started (and stopped) using DOS with 2.1 on an Acorn Computer in 1984. Thank goodness I had an Apollo Workstation for my engineering work and that was bundled with Interleaf Publisher. The system was a kind of Unix+ OS, was the world's first networked workstation and the world's first window manager. We wrote our applications in Pascal.

In 1989, the company wanted our Apollo code ported to DOS 4. I recall my first demo by the DOS lovers and said "OK, guys. I know you're playing a game with me. This is the same stuff that was on the Acorn 5 years ago. Where is the OS?"

They weren't kidding. The system appeared to me to have no software at all! Single user, a limit of 640k for a program. 25x80 character display. Sneaker net (floppy disk networking). How did such a mess become successful?

Reminds me of a Joke I made way back in the day, and I am sure this is completely unoriginal but I remember calling the dosshell dos-hell. I know, so funny right? Right? :D


Then again I didn't have a computer in my home until Windows 95 era. My parents were slow adopters to technology, so all I had to use was what was at school and friends. So lots of Windows 3.11 machines, lots of Apple IIe computers. We had a few computers in our library that ran Windows 98, and the very back bone was NT based. I only know this because I once sort of abused my some privileges given to me and installed Doom on one of the network drives. Which is pretty much how I taught myself how to use DOS, and I did so with out Internet or google, just good old plain trial and error, and there was a lot of error.

I'd have to say my favorite OS in concept is Linux, but in practice it is probably OS X. I love the flexibility of Linux and how I can do whatever I want with zero restraints, but I think it doesn't quite have the polished feel of OS X.

I'm pretty platform agnostic. I think the OS is merely a tool, and one chooses the best tool for the job at hand.
Although my main computer is a Mac Pro, I run Win7x64 on it pretty much exclusively (I do a ton of .NET and SQL Server development).
When I set up a server and it needs to be 100% secure with 99.999% uptime, I use FreeBSD. If I need to set up a server for someone that needs to be able to remote into it real easily, but 100% reliability is not a must-have, then I'll use Win2008R2.
If I need a workstation for test and development work that is completely customizable, I tend towards a Linux distro.
If I did more Mac or iPhone development work, I would no doubt be using OS X constantly.
In the past, I've used Solaris (even SunOS for a bit), Irix, HP/UX, AIX (on an old Mac ANS 500/132 I bought for $50), QNX, OS/2, etc. They all had their quirks, and all had things they did well at.

I love obscure operating systems. I used to troll ebay for ancient non-IBM computers, just to get one with some bizarre OS on it.

i have both Mac OS X 10.6 based MacBook Pro 13 inches and Windows 7 Professional based Sony VAIO and both are good at their own end. I love both and therefore its a tie between these two operating systems.

OS is the best operating system!